Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 1163
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJ.
State of Odisha & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dilip Kumar Mohapatra – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14132 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27549 of 2024)
Decided On : 10-12-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. Debasis Jena, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. E.R. Kumar, Adv. Mr. D.p Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Thakral, Adv. Ms. Apurba Pattanayak, Adv. M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR
The court ruled that temporary employees cannot claim reinstatement if their engagement was not made through a proper recruitment process, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Engagement of temporary employee - Disengagement without notice or reason - High Court quashed termination and ordered reinstatement - Court held that the engagement was temporary and the High Court's order was not legally sustainable. (Paras 9, 21, 22)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice violated by termination without opportunity to be heard - Court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural fairness. (Paras 9, 22)
Facts of the case:
The first respondent was engaged as a Computer Technician on a temporary basis and was terminated without notice or reason before the completion of the term. The Tribunal granted limited relief, which was challenged in the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order for reinstatement was set aside as it was not legally justified, and the appellant was directed to pay compensation instead.
Issues: Whether the termination of the first respondent was valid and whether the High Court's order for reinstatement was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court's direction to reinstate the first respondent was not legally sound, emphasizing that the engagement was temporary and the principles of natural justice were not violated in the context of a non-stigmatic disengagement.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside.
JUDGMENT
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By an office order dated 23.04.2001 issued by the Director of Teacher Education & SCERT, Bhubaneswar, Orissa [The Director], the first respondent was engaged as Computer Technician at the College of Teacher Education, Balasore [The College]. The terms of his engagement were as follows:
“………is engaged as Computer Technician at College of Teacher Education, Balasore in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 with usual DA/ADA as admissible from time to time for a period of one year or till the post is filled up on a regular basis, whichever is earlier, with effect from the date he joins his assignment.
This is purely temporary assignment to help operate the computer system available to the college under UGC Development grant.”
3. Pursuant to the order of engagement, the first respondent joined the office of the Principal of the College on 01.05.2001. Later, his services were dispensed with by the Director vide office order dated 22.01.2002 which reads thus:
“As the services of Sri Dilip Kumar Mohapatra, working as Computer Technician in the CTE, Balasore, no more required is hereby terminated with effect from 22.01.2002 (A.N.)”
4. Aggrieved by the disengagement order, the first respondent filed O.A. No. 828 (C) of 2002 before Orissa Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack [The Tribunal], inter alia, on the following grounds:
(a) the order violates the principles of natural justice; and
(b) the order is bereft of reasons.
5. The appellant (i.e., the State of Odisha) contested the proceedings before the Tribunal, inter-alia, on the following grounds:
(a) the engagement of the first respondent was purely temporary and for a fixed term just to meet the exigencies of establishment i.e. training programme and pre-service training programme and since December 2002 the pressure of work had lessened, the first respondent was disengaged; and
(b) the engagement was not pursuant to any recruitment exercise therefore the first respondent had no right to the post.
6. During the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, the first respondent placed reliance on two orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 2242 of 2002 and 481 of 2008 wherein, according to the first respondent, similarly situated persons like the first respondent were given the benefit of reinstatement and pursuant thereto, they were offered regular appointments.
7. The Tribunal took the view that since the first respondent was not appointed by following any procedure known to law for appointment to a public post, and the engagement was for a fixed term, the only relief which could be granted to him is pay and allowances from the date of his disengagement (i.e. 22.01.2002) till expiry of his original term of engagement (i.e. 30.04.2002).
8. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the first respondent invoked jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack [The High Court] under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India [The Constitution].
9. By the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2022, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Tribunal and directed reinstatement of the first respondent in service with all service and financial benefits as due and admissible to the post. While directing so, the High Court reasoned thus:
“7.This Court after going through the materials available on record finds that the Petitioner was appointed as a Computer Technician vide Office order dated 23.04.2001 under Annexure-1. The said order was issued with a condition that the Petitioner will continue for a period of one year or till the post is filled up on regular basis. But prior to completion of the said period of one year and prior to taking any step to fill up the post on regular basis, the Petitioner was abruptly terminated from his service vide order under Annexure-3. From the pleadings available on the record, it is quite evident that prior to issuing such order of termination under Annexure-3 on 22.01.2002 the Petitioner was
